1. S. A. RAHMAN, J.-This appeal by special leave arises out of the following facts.
2. Quarter No. 214/13, Rahmanpura Colony, Lahore, was given on hire-purchase system to the first respondent, Atta-ur-Rahman, by the Rehabilitation authorities. An agreement was executed between the parties. There was a clause in that agreement forbidding the respondent from subletting the premises. He is alleged to have contravened that condition and, consequently, the departmental authorities cancelled the allotment in his favour and allotted the Quarter in question to the appellant. It may be mentioned that the appellant was the person to whom the res-- pondent is said to have sub let the premises. The respondent appealed to the Board of Revenue, who appear to have made over his appeal for disposal to the D. R. C. The latter officer refused to interfere with the cancellation of the hire-purchase agreement and the respondent then moved the High Court of West Pakistan -in writ jurisdiction for redress.
3. The High Court took the view that there was no penalty prescribed in the agreement itself for the violation of the clause against subletting. The departmental order was, 'therefore, quashed. Special leave to appeal was granted in this case as it was contended, on behalf of the appellant, that the High Court had lost sight of the last part of clause 10 of the agreement, which, inter alia, provided for forfeiture of the agreement in case there was contravention of any of the conditions thereof.
4. We have heard Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah, in support of the appeal. Learned counsel has taken us through the clauses of the agreement of hire-purchase, executed inter parties. Clause 10 is reproduced below.
5. "That if any of the said instalments or any part thereof shall remain unpaid after due date, whether the same shall have been demanded or not, the second party shall be liable to payment of an interest on the arrears due at the rate of 41 per cent per annum. In case any arrears remain outstanding for a period of three months after such date, the first party shall be entitled to resume possession of the house and the amount of the security shall be forfeited to the first party, notwithstanding the waiver of any previous breach or right of re-entry, cancel this agreement and take possession of the house and if necessary, initiate proceeding for the recovery of the amount due and any other sum or sums payable by the second party to the first party under these presents if the second party shall not observe and perform the covenants contained in this agreement, or if the agreement shall otherwise become void."
6. Dr. Nasim Hasan Shah has tried to maintain that the fast part of this clause gives power to the first party, namely, the Rehabilitation Authorities, to cancel the agreement and exercise their right of re- entry in case of violation of any one of the condi--tions of the agreement. We are not satisfied that this is the case. Apparently, the last sentence in this clause is directed towards the case of default in payment of instalments, due under the agree--ment, from the second party. We are unable to find fault with the view of the High Court that this clause does not provide any penalty for breach of the conditions against subletting. This opinion is fortified by the fact that the department itself; realising the correct position, later issued a correction slip to the relevant form and inserted clause 10(a) in the agreement to read 'as follows:---- "If at any time during the currency of the agreement on account of the contravention of any terms of the agreement, the right to cancel the allotment accrues to the first party, it shall be lawful for the first party either to cancel the allotment in exercise of that right or to accept, in lieu thereof, by way of compromise, any satisfaction in money from the second party." .
7. Clearly this condition was non-existent at the time when the agreement in this case was drawn up.
8. We, therefore, can discover no ground for interference with the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the appeal. However, in the circumstances of the case, vie make no order as to costs.